Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

TODAY, February 24, is the tenth death anniversary of Dr Ahmed Sharif. A highly respected scholar of Bengali literature, Professor Sharif was a non-conformist public intellectual. An atheist, he was one of the most controversial and misunderstood personalities our time.
   He came from Patiya, Chittagong. He did his Masters and PhD degrees in Bengali literature from Dhaka University in 1944 and 1967 respectively. From 1945 to 1949, he taught at Laksham Nawab Faizunnessa College and later on at Feni College. From July 1949 to December 1950, he worked as programme assistant at the Dhaka centre of Radio Pakistan. On December 18, 1950, he joined as a research assistant in the Bengali department at Dhaka University. He retired as chairman and professor of the department in 1983.
   He was also elected a member of the senate, a member of the syndicate, dean of the Faculty of Arts for a record three consecutive terms, president of the teachers’ association and president of the teachers club. After his retirement, he served as the first ‘Kazi Nazrul Islam Professor’ at Chittagong University for two years, from 1984 to 1986.
   Dr Sharif was the recipient of many honours and awards for his outstanding contributions in the field of medieval Bengali literature and also for his socio-cultural-political essays. He received the Bangla Academy Literary Award (1968), Daud Literary Award (1969), Bangladesh Women Writers Association Literary Award (1980), Alakta Literary Council Award (1989) and the Ekushe Padak (1991). A major recognition came from the Rabindra Bharati University, India, which conferred upon him the Doctor of Literature in 1995 for his outstanding contribution to Bengali literature.
   He authored more than 100 publications in the form of books on history, philosophy, socio-cultural and contemporary political issues. He edited, with long introductions, 46 manuscripts of ancient and medieval Bengali literature. His two volumes of Bangalee and Bangla Shahitva (Men and Literature of Bengal), published between 1978 and 1983, are rated as masterpieces.
   Dr Sharif boldly expressed his views which drew hatred and enmity of reactionary forces. He was universally regarded for his ability to say ‘no’ to various material temptations. He was never ‘clever’ enough to work for his own mundane interests. His sense of responsibility and love for the people was legendary. Following are some examples:
   * The Bengali Department of the Dhaka University arranged a meeting on the occasion of the Language Day. The meeting was presided over by Dr Ahmed Sharif and a unanimous decision was taken against the proposal of the education commission for the introduction and implementation of Roman alphabet in writing Bengali (Ittefaq: February 27, 1959).
   * In 1963, the ‘Temporary East Bengal Government’ (in brief, Apurba Sangsad) was formed in the wake of a successful movement against the education policy of the then government and this ‘Apurba Sangsad’ campaigned very secretly for ‘Independent Bangladesh’. Poet Sufia Kamal and Abdul Aziz Bagmar were the president and secretary respectively and Dr Ahmed Sharif was one of the advisers.
   * Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman records that Dr Ahmed Sharif wrote on October 1, 1965 a secret document for Apurba Sangsad (Asthaee Purba Bangla Sarker — Temporary Government of East Bengal) and the document was known as the 3rd Manifesto of the Sangsad, the title of which was: Ittihasher Dharay Bangalee (Historical Trends of Bengalees). He proposed the name of the then East Pakistan as ‘Bangladesh’ and chose Rabindranath Tagore’s ‘Sonar Bangla’ as the national anthem (Prothom Alo, February 04, 2000). Details about this movement can be found in Abdul Aziz Bagmar’s Swadhinatar Swapna: Unmesh-0-Orjan (Dream of Independence: Inception and Achievement, December 1999, Dhaka).
   * Dr Ahmed Sharif, along with Dr Kudrat-e-Khuda, Dr Kazi Motahar Hossain, Poet Sufia Kamal, Painter Zainul Abedin, Poet Sikandar Abu Zafar, Professor Munier Chowdhury, Poet Hasan Hafizur Rahman and others, vehemently opposed the boycott or near-boycott of Tagore’s song in the national media (Dainik Pakistan, 25, 1967)
   * Dr Ahmed Sharif, along with Abul Hashim, Dr Muhammed Enamul Haq, Poet Jashimuddin, Poet Sufia Kamal, Professor Munier Chowdhury and Professor Mufazzal Haider Chowdhury, demanded to the central government of Pakistan to rename East Bengal as ‘Bangla’ as the one-unit system in West Pakistan was abolished. Dr Ahmed Sharif said our identity is ‘Bangla’ and we are using ‘Bangla’ as our name in our literature, speeches and every sphere of life (Writers Rights Protection Committee, 1969).
   * 128 teachers of the Dhaka University in a joint statement appealed to the president of Pakistan to convene the National Assembly to save the people and country from a possible civil war. The prominent signatories were Professor Abdur Razzak, Dr MN Huda, Dr M Innas Ali, Dr Muzaffar Ahmed Chowdhury, Dr Mofizullah Kabir, Professor Munier Chowdhury and Dr Ahmed Sharif (Ittefaq, March 4, 1971).
   * On March 5, 1971, cultural activists and intellectuals went to the ‘Shahid Minar’ and took a solemn oath under the leadership of Dr Ahmed Sharif that ‘Even at the cost of our life we will continue our struggle for the rights of East Bengal (Pakistan) and through our writings we will inspire the struggling people. For the success of the movement, our writings will act as bayonet and bullet. Forgetting the differences of the past, we will be united with the masses and proceed forward for the success of the struggle’ (Rafiqul Islam: Ekattorer Osohojog Andolon-0-BuddUibira, 1982)
   * For an independent and sovereign state, the Writers Action Committee arranged a meeting under the presidentship of Dr Ahmed Sharif and the meeting appealed to NAP leader Maulana Bhashani, Awami League Leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and other political leaders of East Pakistan to be united in the greater interest of the people (Dainik Pakistan: March 15, 1971).
   * The Bangla Chhatra Union and Biplobi Chhatra Union observed the ‘Shahid Asad Day’ and on this occasion Dr Ahmed Sharif said that the country meant not only soil but also its people. As we love people, that’s why we remember Shahid Asad (Dainik Bangla: January 21, 1972).
   * At a discussion held in memory of the martyred intellectuals at Bangla Academy, Dr Ahmed Sharif urged the government not to impose any restrictions on expressing free thought (Dainik Bangla: February 6, 1972).
   * In an interview with the news agency ENA, Dr Ahmed Sharif said that the people in Bangladesh lacked nothing but moral character (Daily Sangbad, July 23, 1973).
   * At the two-day-long national convention of Bangladesh Lekhak Shibir, Dr Sirajul Islam Chowdhury read out the main paper on ‘Social Responsibilities of a Writer’. In his presidential speech Dr Ahmed Sharif said there are three types of intellectuals in the country –– one type is attached to the government, second type is afraid of the government and third type is against Bangla (May 16, 1977).
   * At the press conference inaugurating Mukti Juddha Chetona Bikash Kendra, Dr Ahmed Sharif said that no one can survive without unity. The people are in danger because of the activities of the Razakars and so the people should be united against the anti-liberation forces (Sangbad, August 24, 1985).
   * On February 6, Muktadhara awarded Dr Ahmed Sharif with Muktadhara Literary Award. On this occasion Dr Ahmed Sharif said there wouldn’t be any sin in the society if the number of atheists increased because this will increase tolerance in the society (Banglar Bani, February 7, 1989)
   * Swadesh Chinta Sangha organised a seminar titled ‘Suppression on Culture’ with Dr Ahmed Sharif in the chair. Because of his controversial views on Islam, country-wide demonstrations were held. Fundamentalists denounced him as ‘Murtad’ (Inquilab: October 22, 1992)
   * On the occasion of the 2lst death anniversary of Charu Majumder a seminar was organised on ‘Naxilite Movement and Charu Majumder’. Dr Ahmed Sharif said in the seminar that NGOs are not allowing our people to be self-reliant. Economic emancipation won’t come until we change the social system. (Bangla Bazar Patrika, July 26, 1993)
   * Swadesh Chinta Sangha organised a seminar on ‘NGOs’ Thoughts on Election’ at the Dhaka University TSC, where Dr. Ahmed Sharif said that half of the teachers of the university were fanatic and rest were pro-Awami League and pro-BNP who were generally purchasable (Dainik Bangla: May 4, 1995).
   * Swadesh Chinta Sangha organised a seminar at the National Press Club. Dr Ahmed Sharif said at the seminar the Awami League did not try to retain secular constitution for which they were committed to the people (Dainik Bangla, October 24, 1995)
   Dr Nehal Karim is professor of sociology at Dhaka University

THE ceasefire in the Pakistani valley of Swat and the prospect of a peace deal between the provincial government and Maulana Fazlullah’s Taliban faction has spurred contradictory reactions, ranging from expressions of joy, relief and tentative optimism to selective scepticism and outright condemnation. This is not surprising, given that the precise nature of what a final agreement may entail is shrouded in confusion.
   The official version of the narrative suggests nothing much has been conceded beyond a longstanding demand for a more efficient system of justice in the Malakand Division. Its designation as Shariah is little more than a colloquial quirk: in effect, it means a change in nomenclature rather than a judicial regime radically at variance with the national norm. Furthermore, this is a change that was endorsed by civilian regimes in the 1990s. Even so, it will be implemented only after the militants have laid down their weapons.
   That makes it seem like an attractive proposition, a small price to pay for restoring serenity in Swat Valley. In fact, it’s hardly a price at all: a speedier legal process can hardly be construed as an unreasonable demand.
   But this obviously isn’t all that the Taliban have been fighting for. Their broadly positive reaction to official overtures suggests that whatever has been offered to them via Maulana Sufi Mohammed, Fazlullah’s father-in-law and the head of the ominous-sounding Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, goes some way beyond what has publicly been revealed. At the same time, they have offered no hint of a willingness to lay down arms. And a week into their tentative 10-day truce, the Taliban kidnapped the head of the district administration, Khushal Khan, ostensibly in order to discuss pressing matters with him.
   Meanwhile, President Asif Zardari, responding to American concerns about developments in Swat, has reassured Washington that the concessions offered to the militants are a temporary tactic – a comment that can only add to the uncertainty. It suggests a disconnect between the aims of the federal government and those of the provincial administration, which has been dealing directly with Sufi Mohammed and professing sincerity in its desire to make the proposed deal work.
   There are essentially two short-term possibilities. The greater likelihood is that the agreement will flounder before it can be implemented, in which case the current hiatus will soon be forgotten as the mayhem of the past two years returns. The alternative is an arrangement whereby Taliban types have a much bigger say in how the region is run.
   The latter is potentially the more dangerous scenario – as any number of commentators have pointed out, it will encourage doctrinaire Salafists in other parts of the country to seek similar leeway through violent means. What’s more, the Swat experience reinforces the impression that bands of militants are capable of outmanoeuvring much larger military contingents. Zardari has complained that the Taliban are bent upon overthrowing the country’s constitutional government. Permitting them to establish their writ, directly or by proxy, barely 100 miles from the national capital is unlikely to serve as a deterrent.
   America’s designation of the proposed deal as a form of surrender may be based on a close reading of the small print that has thus far eluded public scrutiny, but its broad opposition to any sort of negotiations with militants does come across as hypocritical, given its theoretical support for deals with the Afghan Taliban. The advent of the Obama administration, meanwhile, has led to a surge in attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas by unmanned aircraft. It was hitherto assumed that the drones were launched from Afghanistan, but it has emerged that the deadly flights originate from a base close to Islamabad – which clearly devalues the official protestations about these flights.
   It has long been suspected that the complaints are intended exclusively for domestic consumption, and last week’s attempt to eliminate Baitullah Mehsud was evidently prompted by suggestions from Islamabad. Be that as it may, the drone attacks are generally accepted as a necessity by sections of Pakistan’s liberal intelligentsia, on the basis that they target al-Qaeda and related militants, who are otherwise capable of operating with impunity in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
   However, the extent to which that is true is disputable. Anonymous American and Pakistani intelligence sources every now and then announce the demise of such and such ‘high-value target’, often citing names that have never previously been mentioned. The dozens of others who die in these attacks remain nameless. ‘We can’t,’ India’s previously hawkish foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee told the Rajya Sabha last week, ‘imitate certain other countries ... Many innocent lives are being lost every day.’ And every innocent life lost translates into fresh recruits for obscurantist causes.
   Mukherjee’s welcome change of tone has been followed by the revelation by Steve Coll in latest issue of The New Yorker that, in three years of secret negotiations, Indian and Pakistani officials came tantalisingly close to a paradigm-changing agreement on Kashmir that would have transformed the disputed area into an autonomous region, with the Line of Control gradually losing its relevance. Apparently the deal fell through because, from March 2007 onwards, General Pervez Musharraf’s authority began ebbing away him as he entered the most indefensible phase of his presidency.
   It is possible, of course, that Musharraf lost the support of his primary constituency – the army – precisely because of the covert dealings with India.
   Under the present circumstances, it’s unlikely anyone can pick up the pieces. The same, soon enough, may be true of Pakistan. There can be little question that Mohammed Ali Jinnah would have been profoundly disappointed by the trajectory of the country he founded. So, for that matter, would Allama Iqbal, the poet who reputedly spawned the idea of a separate Muslim nation in the subcontinent.
   Notwithstanding the reverence accorded to Iqbal in Pakistan, his visceral distrust of the Muslim clergy is often overlooked. I was reminded of this last week when the eminent Marxist historian Professor Victor Kiernan followed in the footsteps of fellow lifelong communist and Urdu scholar Ralph Russell, who died last September at the age of 90. Russell was a Ghalib expert. Kiernan, who lived to be 95, was equally fascinated by the subcontinent and leaves behind erudite – if not particularly poetic – translations of Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Iqbal.
   This week’s epigram comes from the latter, as translated by Kiernan:
   Rise, and from their slumber wakes the poor ones of my world!
   Shake the walls and windows of the mansions of the great!
   ... Banish from the house of God the mumbling priest whose prayers
   Znet, February 23.

Power crisis mitigation

Considering all foreseeable things, I think, going for a one thousand megawatt atomic power generation is a must for our country.
   A citizen
   Via e-mail

---